D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
What an election that would have been, where Rob voted Milliband and Ian for Cameron!
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Other question is: do you really want a person forced into care work for vulnerable beneficiaries?
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'd imagine all of these are unemployed. Perhaps they fancy doing a bit of care work.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
rob9872
Well-Known Member
That's a bit loaded, but if everything was fine and could be fully funded, im sure it would be less of an issue. Working services would need to include enough housing for all, including those coming and lots of space and availability. In land size we're pretty small and even if we say everything is fine today and the +10m in 20 years is ok, do you think we can cope with another 10m in the next 20 years if it continues?
I accept we need immigration in the current model, but imo it's the model that's wrong. It will keep growing and therefore we'll need more and more in part to replace those who have been here a while prove they are also better than the low paid jobs and progress. Therefore, my reverse question to the more left thinking
, is what cap would you put on the country (if any) and how would you implement it to achieve that number.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'll agree the model's wrong. As we're all being remarkably civil here atm
I would ask how you'd change that model using the current 'right' thinking, which to my mind exacerbates the need for immigration (and maybe more to the point creates a divide as immigrants are seen as / perceive themselves as second class citizens as opposed to just 'people') as it holds wages down in certain areas. The only way I can see you do it is increase funding to subsidise wages, value such jobs as 'skilled' (and they are, I wouldn't and / or couldn't care for a load of people daily, I can barely care for myself!) but that either means we all pay more tax to begin with, or we have a Truss-like shock to the economic system that causes more issues than it solves.You're not wrong btw that people earning more, and therefore spending more in the country, and paying more in taxes as a resuly is probably worth some investment and in some areas would end up cost neutral, but definitely in the short term there'd be an impact. It also doesn't help of course that we've been so laissez-faire with our industry, that spending more in this country doesn't necessarily mean this country sees the benefit it should, as the money goes out in dividends to foreign corporations and / or investors.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That’s the whole point. It’s highly unlikely to continue. The migration observatory has done some decent articles on it pointing to separate reports by both the ONS and OBR and comparing historic trends of migration to the UK and comparing to trends in comparable economies. Both the ONS and OBR are forecasting net migration to fall in 2-3 years based on the historical data that steep rises in nett migration follow 2-3 years later with steep falls. The main factors being that a large number of economic migrants arrive with a plan of staying for 2-3 years to earn a sizeable cash injection before returning home to set up a home, start a family etc. to a standard that they couldn’t have achieved without migrating for a short period of time. You also have to factor in that a large percentage of migrants into the UK are students.That's a bit loaded, but if everything was fine and could be fully funded, im sure it would be less of an issue. Working services would need to include enough housing for all, including those coming and lots of space and availability. In land size we're pretty small and even if we say everything is fine today and the +10m in 20 years is ok, do you think we can cope with another 10m in the next 20 years if it continues?
I accept we need immigration in the current model, but imo it's the model that's wrong. It will keep growing and therefore we'll need more and more in part to replace those who have been here a while prove they are also better than the low paid jobs and progress. Therefore, my reverse question to the more left thinking
On the world stage western countries that are comparable to the UK are seeing the exact same trends as us, especially when looking at net migration per capita. We’re not alone.
If we had a sensible government who could fight the next GE on their own record in government they’d be at pains to point this out. We don’t have that though, we have the current version of the Tories who somehow are managing to be even more ridiculous than the Boris version. So instead they’ve chosen to make a big issue out of it so they can fight the next GE on a phoney culture war instead of their own record or real politics. Not only has this backed them into a corner of their own making there’s every possibility that they’re handing the next government a guaranteed 2 terms. If the ONS and OBR are correct then there’s going to be a correction back to pre covid levels (both are independently predicted net migration to fall to circa 250k a year within 2-3 years) and of course whoever is in power will claim that they’re the party that got migration back under control. A free gift from the Tories.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I'd imagine all of these are unemployed. Perhaps they fancy doing a bit of care work.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
To a certain extent I think some people are already forced into care work out of economic necessity, which might be some of the reasoning behind the abuse in care homes. It really is time that social value is given parity with economic value and essential jobs like these are paid for properly.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
@skybluetony176 I've got to be honest, it's beyond what I can comprehend to believe statistics that show a reversal when year on year for as long as I can recall, migration has always been positive. However, if I understand you mean that net migration will fall but still be positive rather than actually be emigration over immigration?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That’s about the size of it. And actually for a country of our size that is a sensible amount of net migration. It grows the economy and we need to compensate for a declining fatality rate. More people in the UK celebrated their 50th birthday last year than were born in the UK by about 100k IIRC. That’s important because around the time the newborns reach working age the 50 year olds will be approaching retirement and not all those newborns will be going straight into the job market, some will be going to uni, some will go travelling, some might even emigrate full time. We have a dwindling working population that can only be sustained with migration unless we get back to 2.4 children, think it’s currently about 1.55 which isn’t enough to sustain the population or the economy.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Would've been cheaper to let Covid rip through the old then. See, I knew you were a Boris fan really
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Would've been cheaper to let Covid rip through the old then. See, I knew you were a Boris fan really
His bragadocious buffoon schtick has come back to bite him on the arse today.
It doesn't matter in the grand s heme of things but hearing him squirm is great entertainment!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
That's a bit loaded, but if everything was fine and could be fully funded, im sure it would be less of an issue. Working services would need to include enough housing for all, including those coming and lots of space and availability. In land size we're pretty small and even if we say everything is fine today and the +10m in 20 years is ok, do you think we can cope with another 10m in the next 20 years if it continues?
I accept we need immigration in the current model, but imo it's the model that's wrong. It will keep growing and therefore we'll need more and more in part to replace those who have been here a while prove they are also better than the low paid jobs and progress. Therefore, my reverse question to the more left thinking
Not really left wing (open borders more of a classical liberal position) but I think I’d look at it slightly differently.
I don’t think the country is close to full. We have low density housing in cities, and have only built on a tiny tiny percentage of the country. I think with proper infrastructure the size of the country could double with no issues personally. I could see London, Manchester/Liverpool, Birmingham all growing significantly with no issues and in many ways lots of benefits.
My concern with immigration is cultural. I think issues come when people with vastly different cultures come and don’t have to integrate. So id probably restrict to middle class professions outside of similar western nations. I think a big problem with EE immigration was that we got very poor people from EE countries because our economies were so different.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
im-migrant from in-migrant
E-migrant e meaning “out” (like emit)
like ingress and egress or inject and eject.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
That's great if you like cities!
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Oi, not me who brought you up (as it were!) this time
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No one is forcing you to live in a city.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Singapore is not a great example of somewhere I'd like to live!
Our's is depressed because Scotland is so sparsely populated. Higher than Netherlands for England. France of course is 118 per square km, Spain c. 95, USA 37, Canada 4...
rob9872
Well-Known Member
In all fairness though has anyone changed their opinion of him or the time or anything else from the inquiry? They've all had time to prepare, so do you know anything that you fidnt already? I mean even I'll admit he didn't cover himself in glory during that time, but still maintain it was unprecedented circumstances and was going with many angles of advice. So for £100m spent on this, that could've even better used elsewhere and to ensure we're better prepared in future. Imo the contracts for PPE remain the biggest scandal and yet hanging Boris and Partygate still seem to be the focus.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They are if they build it around me!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I’m talking about building up in places like London Birmingham and Manchester. You’re on about urban sprawl. We have very low density major cities by international standards.
And yes, France, Spain, Canada could absorb a lot more people, but we aren’t talking about their immigration policy.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Not surprising I am, when I hear that we've "only built on a tiny tiny percentage of the country."
Compared to most countries in the world, we're over-densely populated. 152 per km2 in China btw, about a third of the density in England.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
So you want fewer people in the UK?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I don't want us to brutalise everything, looking to places like Singapore ffs for inspiration!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You’d rather Birmingham??
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I think an enquiry is imperative, and I base that on hearing from people who lost loved ones.
If we recuperated the money embezelled during the pandemic then 100m for this inquiry would be a drop in the ocean.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes highlands of Scotland and Wales as well as Devon and Cornwall have enormous Job opportunities
You could fit millions into Australia - slight issue though
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This would have been a right zinger before me and NW had a conversation clarifying how it would be done.
But you’re right, no jobs in Cornwall, so we’re unlikely to build there, more likely to increase density in the cities where the jobs are. As I said.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Have to be certain consequences for derleliction of duty too. I'm in danger of going full Starmer, but even though Thatcher is exactly the kind of politics I despise, and I suspect I'd have hated the decisions she made during the pandemic, I could also have been sure she'd have turned up to meetings, listened to advice, read reports, and taken it Very. Seriously. Indeed.
And that's kind of what a PM should do! Would have been confident in Major, Blair, Brown, May all doing similar as well.
And yes, we all knew we elected a workshy buffoon who has no concept of anything other than his own ego, but it'll do no harm to point out just how terrible a PM he was for such a scenario, and if that makes people stop and consider whether they're electing someone off a soundbyte or because they're somebody who will actually bust a gut for their country, then it's worth it.
And PPE etc ties into the loose and woolly way Johnson ran government. Again, I bet Thatcher would have at least been aware what was happening, rather than just airily waving things through or not even noticing in the first place.